Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Icons – Google Fonts

fonts.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 190 posts

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#131

Post by legitster »

eek04_ wrote: post #112
eurasiantiger wrote: post #4

The provided usage example is bad for accessibility: the name of the icon, e.g. ”check_circle”, will be announced by screen readers. If there is other contextual information that explains the icon, the icon can be hidden from screen readers using aria-hidden=”true”. However, in cases where the icon appears stand-alone, it needs to contain a human-understandable text that explains its meaning. Also, never use Google’s…

> Also, never use Google’s CDN for loading fonts or icons — always self-host them. The CDNs are used to track your users. Any evidence of this claim? Also, given that the Google CDNs allow caching for 24h, it seems extremely ineffective even if it was done.

Yeah, seconding this. The main benefit of using a Google CDN is that there is a huge chance it's already cached on the client device. Which would mean that there is less useful tracking information.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#132

Post by deckard1 »

systemvoltage wrote: post #102

I am sorry but I am going to be that guy. Iconography has regressed so much, it's all the same optically to me. Designers keep pushing minimalism and line-graphics to "reduce crud" like its some sort of a religion. We can't distinguish icons well. There is no effort put into making them more unique and recognizable. What a horrible cult. Check out these glorious past remnants that we've forgotten about, they were so…

> Google services icons? All impossible to tell apart now.

Google went for maximum idiocy when they tried to use logos to serve two distinct roles: branding and utility. Which is why they look like complete unreadable ass.

They forgot the simple fact that if you want branding, logos must look unique. And if you want utility, icons must be representative. It's a classic case of wanting impossible design. I suspect there were no actual designers involved in the top-level direction at all. I've certainly done worse things for a paycheck.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#133

Post by brudgers »

systemvoltage wrote: post #128
crazygringo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, I absolutely agree with you. I tremendously lament the fact that outline, color, and shading have been thrown out so now we're trying to decipher little rounded-box hieroglyphics based on lines being subtly different. But on the other hand, the problem is that icons took so much work to create before, and also because they had such a recognizable identity/brand they weren't easy to reuse. Now the ico…

Yes, it attaches a particular theme/brand/aesthetic to iconography. I think we should push designers to do the due diligence and not just get something from material.io and dump it in the app. It won't happen because $$$, ship ship ship and MVP culture, agile, etc. Careful, meticulous, rigorous, disciplined, thoughtful work is old fashioned. We produce broken, shitty apps because early feedback culture, not finishing…

Most designers can create a good icon. Or two. But a cohesive set of one fifty is going to have a few that are not so good. And some that are outright crap.

If a designer is designing icons, the designer is probably solving the wrong problem. Either because the "client" doesn't know what the right problem is. Or because designing icons is more for the designer than solving the right problem.

Icons are hard because...well, all the reasons a floppy disk is the standard save icon. What I mean is that designers will default to their own experience and a floppy disk was it when the first sticky save icon was designed.

Now it means save. A designer who wants to change the floppy disk is solving the wrong problem.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#134

Post by legitster »

systemvoltage wrote: post #102

I am sorry but I am going to be that guy. Iconography has regressed so much, it's all the same optically to me. Designers keep pushing minimalism and line-graphics to "reduce crud" like its some sort of a religion. We can't distinguish icons well. There is no effort put into making them more unique and recognizable. What a horrible cult. Check out these glorious past remnants that we've forgotten about, they were so…

I'm going to disagree.

I deal with a lot of legacy interfaces with brightly colored icons and they can be just as confusing if not more confusing than minimalist icons. But I think people have a survivorship bias (we remember the good examples over the bad ones), as well as a familiarity bias (I like the things I grew up using!).

I think the benefit of flat, monochrome designs is that they force you to offload meaning into the layout and flow of the application. You actually have to pick out a nice, meaningful spot to put the button, and make sure it makes sense in the context, and make sure users can discover it easily. Compare that to an open source application that just throws a bright green plus sign at the end of a row of icons and expects you to know what it does.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#136

Post by benrbray »

greggturkington wrote: post #107
bagacrap wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see how these would be bad for accessibility. The markup is a with a human readable word like "home" in it.

The content "trending_up" is almost useless, a voiceover will not interpret the underscore as a space. There are no ARIA attributes that link any of the text to the buttons.

It seems like the solution is to improve the accessibility tools. The information is all already there.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#137

Post by tablespoon »

legitster wrote: post #134
systemvoltage wrote: post #102

I am sorry but I am going to be that guy. Iconography has regressed so much, it's all the same optically to me. Designers keep pushing minimalism and line-graphics to "reduce crud" like its some sort of a religion. We can't distinguish icons well. There is no effort put into making them more unique and recognizable. What a horrible cult. Check out these glorious past remnants that we've forgotten about, they were so…

I'm going to disagree. I deal with a lot of legacy interfaces with brightly colored icons and they can be just as confusing if not more confusing than minimalist icons. But I think people have a survivorship bias (we remember the good examples over the bad ones), as well as a familiarity bias (I like the things I grew up using!). I think the benefit of flat, monochrome designs is that they force you to offload meanin…

> I deal with a lot of legacy interfaces with brightly colored icons and they can be just as confusing if not more confusing than minimalist icons. But I think people have a survivorship bias (we remember the good examples over the bad ones),...

I don't think anyone's disputing that you can do colorful icons poorly, but that's not an argument against them as a concept.

> ...as well as a familiarity bias (I like the things I grew up using!).

One of the cardinal sins of modern UX is fixing things that aren't broken, often just as you were getting used to the last "fix."

> I think the benefit of flat, monochrome designs is that they force you to offload meaning into the layout and flow of the application. You actually have to pick out a nice, meaningful spot to put the button, and make sure it makes sense in the context, and make sure users can discover it easily.

Nothing's stopping a designer from doing that with colorful icons.

I think the real reason for flat, monochrome icons is designers prioritizing the overall visual look/style of an application over its usability. It's almost like a less extreme version of designing a "computer interface" for a movie.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#138

Post by systemvoltage »

legitster wrote: post #134
systemvoltage wrote: post #102

I am sorry but I am going to be that guy. Iconography has regressed so much, it's all the same optically to me. Designers keep pushing minimalism and line-graphics to "reduce crud" like its some sort of a religion. We can't distinguish icons well. There is no effort put into making them more unique and recognizable. What a horrible cult. Check out these glorious past remnants that we've forgotten about, they were so…

I'm going to disagree. I deal with a lot of legacy interfaces with brightly colored icons and they can be just as confusing if not more confusing than minimalist icons. But I think people have a survivorship bias (we remember the good examples over the bad ones), as well as a familiarity bias (I like the things I grew up using!). I think the benefit of flat, monochrome designs is that they force you to offload meanin…

It is interesting. I will need to check sources (Samir Zeki's vision book is amazing), but color detection happens way sooner in the v2/v3 region than symbol interpretation which is a higher level function. This is why stop signs are red, traffic lights are not icons (even if distance wasn't a concern, icon based traffic lights would take too long for human vision system to process). Evolutionarily, certain colors such as red indicate threat, injury, decay or food (blood) and we're hardwired to detect it effortlessly and within 100 ms or so. Before the interpretation (v4/v5/limbic system) happens. Baring color blindness concerns, monochrome iconography is objectively worse in every way except for the reasons I'll discuss below.

If you study mission critical systems, even a fork lift, colors are everywhere. EMO button is red. CNC control panels have lots of colors.

The reason why we use flat symbols (recylcing symbol on a milk jug, hazard labels on chemicals, bathroom symbols and airport signs, and road signs) is a practical consideration about printability and ease of application (single printing ink, stencils ), color fastness in the sun, etc. It's not for the reasons you're alluding to, although some of those concerns are orthogonally valid - layout should be logical and flow should be intuitive. Color icons are far superior, if someone can publish a scientific study, I would bet on it with real money. They might be ugly, not against brand/identity/etc. but I am strictly speaking of their utility.

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#139

Post by jessaustin »

jefftk wrote: post #121
jarek-foksa wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux desktop app is free, macOS desktop app costs 9.99 USD (one-time payment), web app costs 9.99 USD / year (no cloud services) or 9.99 USD / month (with cloud services). The complete pricing table is shown in the footer area of the home page when you open it with a Chromium-based browser.

> when you open it with a Chromium-based browser Looks like they're using the experimental CSSStyleSheet() constructor [1] to display the pricing table. Ugh. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/CSSStyleShe...

Someone has to push us to the future! Why wouldn't a business be happy to exclude 30% of browsers?

https://www.npmjs.com/package/construct-style-sheets-polyfil...

Re: Icons – Google Fonts

#140

Post by systemvoltage »

brudgers wrote: post #133
systemvoltage wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it attaches a particular theme/brand/aesthetic to iconography. I think we should push designers to do the due diligence and not just get something from material.io and dump it in the app. It won't happen because $$$, ship ship ship and MVP culture, agile, etc. Careful, meticulous, rigorous, disciplined, thoughtful work is old fashioned. We produce broken, shitty apps because early feedback culture, not finishing…

Most designers can create a good icon. Or two. But a cohesive set of one fifty is going to have a few that are not so good. And some that are outright crap. If a designer is designing icons, the designer is probably solving the wrong problem. Either because the "client" doesn't know what the right problem is. Or because designing icons is more for the designer than solving the right problem. Icons are hard because...…

I discussed this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26332553

I agree with you. We should take advantage of existing historical context such as the floppy save icon. This is what the Fam Fam Fam icon set does. The main issue is not to redesign them, but to design them in such a way that it is recognizeable. You can design floppy disk in many ways to fit your design aesthetic. Just that it should not be confused with 10 other icons. If you use monochrome line graphics, its hard to tell instantly.

Post reply on HN